2000 PLP 134 (PLC)

Ghulam Nabi and Gohar Iqbal for Applicants. Shahid Anwar Bajwa for Respondent (on Pre‑Admission Notice). This is a revision application under section 38(3‑a), of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the order, dated 8‑3‑1999, passed in Grievance Application No.6 of 1998 under section 25‑A, of the I.R.O., 1969, dismissing the application for restoration of the grievance petition.

2. The facts, giving rise to the above revision, briefly stated, are that the applicant was an employee of the respondent Establishment. He was charge‑sheeted for remaining absent from his duty without leave application for more than ten days. After holding domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 11‑8‑1997. Being aggrieved of his dismissal, he gave a grievance notice, dated 8‑11‑1997, to the respondent Establishment and, thereafter, filed the grievance petition in the Labour Court on 20‑1‑1998. The said petition was admitted and was fixed for hearing on 25‑2‑1998, when the reply statement was filed by the respondent Establishment. Thereafter, the case was fixed for filing of affidavit‑in‑evidence of the applicant on 5‑3‑1998. Nine adjournments were sought by the applicant for filing the same i.e. 5‑3‑1998, 21‑3‑1998, 31‑3‑1998, 13‑4‑1998, 23‑4‑1998, 4‑5‑1998, I6‑S‑1998, 4‑7‑1998, 15‑7‑1998, 23‑7‑1998 and 28‑7‑1998 as last chance, specifically mentioned in the order. The petitioner/applicant again failed to file affidavit‑in‑evidence and sought for further time. The learned Presiding Officer, though had already passed an order that 28‑7‑1998 will be the last chance, showed his leniency in granting two more adjournments for 6‑8‑1998 and 24‑8‑1998. On the last date i.e. 24‑8‑1998, the applicant again failed to file his affidavit‑in‑evidence. The learned Presiding Officer was, therefore, pleased to dismiss the grievance petition for non‑prosecution by his order, which is reproduced as under:‑‑ "24‑8‑1998. Applicant and his counsel are called absent. Respondent counsel is present. The application is dismissed in default and non‑prosecution by the applicant. "

3. After about 27 (twenty seven) days of passing the above order, the application for restoration was filed by the applicant. The respondent filed objection to the said application and the learned Presiding Officer, after hearing the parties counsel, was pleased to dismiss the application for restoration by his order, impugned in the above revision.

4. I have gone through the order and am of the view that the order impugned in the above revision, has been passed in accordance with law. There is no illegality, incorrectness or even impropriety in the order, impugned in this revision. The law helps the vigilant and not indolent. The applicant has been taking time, off and on, for nearly seven months, whereas, the law requires the petition under section 25‑A of LR.O., to be disposed of within seven days.

5. I find no merit in the revision. It is dismissed. H.B.T./326‑K (L.Trib) Revision dismissed.